Redpill me on the Electric Universe theory. Is it the only cosmology which doesn't go against Dialectical Materialism?

This is where lysenkoism starts.

That’s where the state vanishes and class goes away.

Planck Length obviously

MY SIDES ARE GOING TO EXPLODE PLEASE TELL ME YOU AREN'T SERIOUS RIGHT NOW

Ki blast

...

Here you go OP:

youtube.com/watch?v=qTYGHzZCBP8

This is literally the opposite of science mate.

We know DiaMat is a science. Care to show otherwise?

Why? Dude what the fuck are you doing

That’s where niggers actually get off their ass, and find a job.

That where things become a form of 2d assembly language of reality.

Thats not how it works m8 its up to you to prove diamat does work, not us to disprove it. Also isnt diamat the shitty revisionist version of historical materialism?

That’s where women stop being degenerate manipulative whores, as if that’s ever going to happen

That's where the LeftComms get off their armchairs.

That's where the holodomor was a genocide

That’s where BO stops being a complete fuckn sperg

Yes but also no. Read Zizek's book.

That's where Muke and Roo learn to read.

How so? Dialectical Materialism is basically the application of dialectics to the materialist study of nature. Marx and Engels were adamant that the dialectical logic that they show in relation to capitalism and historical phenomenon don’t merely end there but was universal. They certainly didn’t think it’s usefulness ended in the realm of social science.

Read Engels Dialectics of Nature and you’ll see that Diamat is hardly a revision. Also, I’ve never understood leftists who only adhere to historical materialism but reject Diamat. In Marxist practice they amount to the same thing though I suppose you can reject one and uphold the other.

But seriously, the idea that history is determined by the material world and not feels is hardly novel to anyone post-Darwin, it’s hardly shocking even post-Gibbon. Historical materialism and dialectical materialism are complementary and in no way opposed imo

DiaMat is the method, HistMat is the science.

That's where the terrorists win.

Lysenko did nothing wrong.
Mendel-Morgan genetics is bourgeois

This. Epigenetics proves Lysenko.

ayy lmao

>since the Big Bang is very problematic for us Marxist-Leninists.
How so?

...

This is when people FINALLY FUCKING READ LENIN 2017 FFS GUYS.

According to the falsifiability principle of demarcation, for a theory to be scientific, it must forbid at least one event. An event is a set of occurrences that differ only in their spatio-temporal individual arguments, an occurrence being the set of all identical statements. This is not the only criteria for demarcation, but it is one of the necessary criteria.

So tell me scientist, what is an event which the science of dialectical materialism forbids?

There is nothing wrong with big bang

It's undialectical.

I want to believe this is a false flag, but I know there is some liberal arts faggot that can't into science, so he must justify it with crackpot theories. Kill yourself, faggot.

Big Bang is undialectical nonsense. Einstein was wrong multiple accounts but everyone is too pussy to admit it.

OP, you need to get off the internet and actually read something written by Marx… God damn…

Since this entire thread is already a dumpster fire, can anybody explain to me what the fuck existed before the Big Bang? Where does the energy of the universe originates?

What exactly is wrong with the big bang?

Bloody crypto-feminists.

Hawking would claim you are asking what is North of the North pole. Extensions to the standard model tentatively suggest our universe exists with a steady state system that encloses an infinite number of universes, but that is largely theoretical prediction.
Polite sage.

Before the Big Bang as in before space-time? Sorry to burst your bubble, friendo, but…

Blessed trips. Checked.

How does Epigenetics prove Lysenko was right?

Daily reminder that Maxwell Planck was a kepitalist pig.

one of the better bait posts I've seen tbh

The question is meaningless. Don't worry too much about it.

Can you actually write down any physical models with dialectical materialism that you wouldn't have thought of otherwise? I think the answer is "no", but maybe there is some extremely out-there category theory in which this sort of thing is done. Regardless, it's probably just some speculative corner of string theory if so.

I think most people familiar with epigenetics at a research level would have many problems with that claim.

Checks out

isn't dialectical materialism just a method of analysis? Why must it apply to every single scientific phenomena ever?

this thank u

I don’t understand the point of the question. Dialectical materialism is the principle that all phenomenon in the universe is material and everything that exists within it is subject to change, that material phenomenon arise from their own internal characteristics and contradictions (such as life for example) and is not set in motion or directed by any grand non-material outside force. I mean that’s generally hard to argue against, no? But some people are still stuck in a mindset that owes more to the quasi-theological clockmaker’s universe of the deists then any rigorous materialism. Marx and Engels described this phenomenon as the “mechanical materialism” of the bourgeoisie which had begun to lose its creative edge in theoretical affairs

I don’t see how the fact you can think up things without relying explicitly on Diamat disproves it. I mean many great scientists, especially prior to the modern age, were believing Christians but I don’t see how that proves atheism untrue or shows that it’s unscientific merely because you don’t have to be an atheist to be a great scientist.

I think in practice many scientists demonstrate dialectical materialism without knowing it. Prior to the Khruschevite takeover of the Soviet Union Soviet scientists were doing cutting edge work in many fields including theoretical physics which is acknowledged by Western bourgeois scholars.

I find it interesting that even when the contributions of these scientists are acknowledged that bourgeois scholars deny Marxism, the socialist system or the Diamat framework had anything to do with their accomplishments. Whereas, when you say that someone may have been using diamat as a method unknowingly you’re met with scoffs. In fact, some very influential Western biologists actually use diamat quite consciously and they aren’t the only ones. Marx is by far the most cited “academic” in the world and not merely in the humanities and social sciences.

...

Radio waves all travel at the speed of light. They oscillate at different frequencies. Lower frequencies have a harder time penetrating solid objects. At a certain point they just bleed through the earth like it's not even there so it might be difficult to even detect. This part isn't really theory. It's fact.

It's the opposite, low frequency, long wavelength waves easily pass through objects, which is why we use radio waves - which have a relatively low frequency and a long wavelength - for transmitting signals. It's also why Gamma radiation is relatively harmless from sources outside of your body, it's very high frequency and short wavelength mean it can't really get past your skin, hell they likely can't even travel very far through the air. You have to actually breathe in or ingest radioactive particles in order for it to start causing problems.

I messed that up, high frequencies attenuate more quickly over a distance and through mass, but can still penetrate objects easily.

This seems a bit trivial, yes. I suppose mechanical materialism was a bit more prevalent when people were more religious.

It's not a matter of proof or disproof, it's whether investing time into studying dialectical materialism for scientific purposes is a useful endeavor, or whether dialectical materialism ends up closer to a religious belief than a tool. I mean, writing down a physical model and exclaiming "It's dialectical!" seems a bit weak, and I don't know any areas of physics where this seems like it might be the case. I guess you could say that people are using it unconsciously but what's the point then? One should either try to formalize it or not worry about it.

Seriously, where the fuck are people getting this metaphysical reading of Marx's materialism?

That's when Real™ socialism happens

That's the house of god.

OP, just pretend to be Jewish, go to your local Jewish bookstore, and grab a copy of the Sefer Yetzirah. Major secrets of the universe will be in there.

Did you really have to bump this shit thread? Your reply wasn't really even worthy of a bump, sage exists for a reason.

Are you going to answer this? If not, I think we can disregard your argument.

Get out of here with your desert cult.

...

...

Yes, because watching ☭TANKIE☭s argue about shit they know nothing about is hilarious in my book.

...

It's shit, there's no point in studying it.

Explain it then. What makes it shit?

Well, just from skimming a page about it, it appears to suggest that forces need to act at infinite speed, which is wrong, because photons (and thus the electromagnetic force) act at the speed of light, since photons are massless.

What does it have to do with diamat?

What's wrong with Lysenkoism?

That's where Libertarians finally start their own business and become millionaires

Why are you basing your understanding of astronomy on your understanding of social studies/economics?

I think a few more delusoinal MLs think that the Big Bang is somehow undialectical, whatever what means, so would like another cosmological model more in line with their priors. Unfortunately, electric universe models are wrong, so this isn't going to work.

Pretty sure Lysenko rejected natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, which we would say is wrong nowadays.

How is the BB undialectical?

ask the OP

presumably, the idea of the (observable) universe somehow "coming into existence" from nothing and being finitely large and finitely old is somehow undialectical.

According to Engels, before the BB was another BB and before that BB was another BB and so on.

Materia always existed and is always moving. There is no start and no ending, says Engels.

So what does this have to do with dialectics?

Engels wrote about the BB in Anti-Dühring.

Far in the future, it will be nearly impossible to detect evidence for the BB due to inflation, interestingly enough.

ANSWER THIS SHIT NIGGER

""""""scientific socialism""""""" btfo. Utopia will win

Bookchin wasn't utopian.

Karl Popper pls go
academia.edu/11235695/Poppers_Double_Standard_of_Scientificity_in_Criticizing_Marxism

How do I download this without making an academia account?

Are you serious?

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.550.1771&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Maybe this link will work better for you?

Thanks.

Diamat is entirely falsifiable. Literally everything in this world is made up of contradictions. You push your hand against a surface and the surface pushes back. That's DiaMat.

Is this the let's use words we don't understand general?

Are you fucking serious?

Did you read the fucking post? Name one event that would disprove DiaMat if it was to occur. If you can't, it is not a scientific theory.

Just because Karl Popper didn't apply his own principles consistently doesn't mean falsifiability isn't still a necessary criterion for demarcation.

t. milquetoast brainlet

Actually read the entire piece it is a far more devastating critique than the mere fact that Popper was a hypocrite.

How am I not describing dialectics? It's just the action-reaction shit you see everyday.

Nothing because everything in this world is made up of contradictions. Read Mao.

I got one. If even the world and the universe stopped changing, stoped being in flux for a single second you might have a case against diamat. Since the universe is actually ACCELERATING I think that diamat is on pretty safe ground.

If you could prove that there is a God and that all change in the Universe is occurring according to his will and part of his plan that would also disprove diamat too.

I bet you think this is a contradiction in the dialectical sense too. There is no hope for you.

I have. On Contradiction was one of the first pieces of Marxist theory I read, but unlike you, I actually went on to read Marx and Hegel instead of just taking Mao's word for how dialectics work.

Think about this one for a moment. Who is to say that the universe doesn't do this all the time? Considering that our observation of phenomenon is itself dependent on these changes and fluctuations (chemical reactions in the brain, changes in positions of photons etc.) how would we know? Perhaps it takes breaks every 12 to 16 hours just as we do.

Even if we did have a way to measure this, all it would tell us is that the proposition "the universe is in a constant state of flux and change" is indeed empirical. Is this all that you mean when you speak of dialectical materialism?

This is not an event, it is a theory. A theory cannot disprove another theory. Only an event can.

I will read it. Thank you for providing something that might be of substance, unlike the brain-dead vulgar Marxist who made this thread.

How is Mao wrong?

He isn't even wrong. He makes no substantial argument. He makes–and repeats–the claim that all things are essentially contradictory, but does not attempt to explain why or how, aside from a few attempted examples which are decidedly not contradictions in any sense of the word. Throughout the piece seems to be quite confused as to what any one of the terms he uses mean. He doesn't seem to know what dialectics are, or even what contradictions are. He is especially confused about the term "metaphysics," as his claims are by any definition metaphysical claims, yet he tries to portray himself as being in opposition to metaphysics.

This is not to say that I do not have respect for Mao. He was an excellent revolutionary leader, and a hero of the working class of China and abroad. He was a fairly skilled poet as well, just not a good philosopher.

Contradictions can be discovered empirically m8. You don't need to read Hegel to know there's a contradiction between imperialists vs. the third world.

What?

You don't understand how imperialists and the people they exploit are in contradiction?

What do you define contradiction as?

A contradiction is the relationship between two or more propositions, the truth of which are mutually exclusive.

For example, the statement "OP is a faggot" is in contradiction with the statement "OP is not a faggot". Only one of these statements can be true (and I think we all know which it is), so they are in contradiction.

No no my friend. Leftypol is for bluepills. Pol is for redpills. Stay sheepy my sheep

Yes so how is Mao wrong about contradiction as you've said?

This shit needs to be saved.

Because Mao's contradictions are of a different kind, unrelated to dialectics.

How are they unrelated?

Me:
Not me:

"Imperialists" and "the people they exploit" are not two statements, the existence of which are mutually exclusive, therefore they cannot be in contradiction. They are certainly in conflict. In fact, if you replaced ever instance of contradiction in Mao's essay with "conflict" it would make much more sense, but then everything it says would be self evident in the first place.

Conflicts are contradictions.

It's where capitalism finally ends humanity.

user, I…
WORDS MEAN THINGS GODDAMMIT

Wait a minute…

Am I talking to a certain pseud, whose name starts with A and ends with W?

No user. I am this undersubbed nigga:
youtube.com/watch?v=fb7K4kSM20s&t=476s&list=UU_2uSv3XybfgdCqqEVYODhg&index=1

Electric universe? That's the sort of thing why no one listens to you lefties. Time to drop some redpills.

How is Electric Universe wrong?

Chomsky CRUSHES Marxist ideologues:

youtube.com/watch?v=fFXNnA3KqzA

...

Claims presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

...

...

...

It argues that forces travel at a speed faster than c which is wrong unless one discards special relativity, but special relativity is well-backed by empirical evidence and there's no reason to do this. Plus, in general one needs to upgrade Galilean symmetry to Lorentz for Maxwell's equations to transform properly and we know those work correctly. There are many other problems with EU, of course, but this is the most obvious one.

not the user you're responding to but does weird shit like quantum entanglement go against SR or has there been some unification of the phenomenon of QE and the theory of SR?

polite sage

You're a fucking retard, and have no evidence to backup your statements. Kill yourself.

No. There are no superluminal correlations, e.g. no superluminal transfer of information. If we entangle two qubits in e.g. a Bell state and have observer 1 do a measurement, how can information about the state get to observer 2? He has to measure it… No information is transferred, even if 1 and 2 are causally disconnected.

Give me one thing DiaMat can't explain.

The physical universe, apparently.

tbh I probably wouldn't have read them otherwise, and it was interesting.

It can explain that though.

Exactly. This is why it is not science.

It sounds really autistic

No, it can't. You need to read a fucking science book next time.

No, it isn't nearly autistic enough.

Because everyone but you leftoids can see that ice the elementary force not just on Earth but the whole cosmos. Google Hoerbiger.

Nice ableism.

...